tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5078331897510807942.post6110094160770558027..comments2023-12-28T01:11:49.188-08:00Comments on Cum Lazaro: Civil partnerships (again)Lazarushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09716412032074416331noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5078331897510807942.post-5119495560715455382011-12-31T00:54:15.946-08:002011-12-31T00:54:15.946-08:00Frederick, I've made a new post in reply to yo...Frederick, I've made a new post in reply to you as it raises some important issues I'd like to take beyond the combox.Lazarushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09716412032074416331noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5078331897510807942.post-37440650353928679792011-12-30T16:53:13.633-08:002011-12-30T16:53:13.633-08:00If you have no truthful way of sexual expression e...If you have no truthful way of sexual expression except with one of your own sex then continence is only possible if you accept some higher authority. The Church can therefore demand what the state can't. It is not reasonable for the state to make demands of people which can only be made in the light of revelation. The state must therefore seek rules which can be applied to those for whom revelation is not part f their experience. If those rules encourage fidelity and reduce promiscuity they must be better than rules which do not. In that sense they can be given some limited support,Frederick Oakeleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02830047562237782045noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5078331897510807942.post-48445205938010828652011-12-30T14:31:20.695-08:002011-12-30T14:31:20.695-08:00The general pattern here should be that the (posit...The general pattern here should be that the (positive) law reflects the natural law. Put another way, human nature flourishes under certain social conditions, and the nearer the social conditions (including the positive (state) law) are to the ideal, the better.<br /><br />So I agree with your final paragraph: better that the positive law reflects the natural law imperfectly than that it doesn't reflect it at all. But that shouldn't have any implications for the recognition of civil partnerships: to the extent that they represent an encouragement to vice (and I've argued that before in our previous exchanges) it cannot be argued that those partnerships represent an imperfect good. They represent no good at all.<br /><br />That said, I certainly agree that we shouldn't pretend civil partnerships don't exist at all. That would be silly, rather like pretending other unfortunate facts (fierce dogs, holes in the pavement) don't exist. But I find it hard to see what that acknowledgment should consist in besides, at the least, silent regret and. more plausibly, some sort of explicit opposition.Lazarushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09716412032074416331noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5078331897510807942.post-31141623694633063972011-12-30T05:18:15.294-08:002011-12-30T05:18:15.294-08:00There is no way of making sense of our attitude to...There is no way of making sense of our attitude to civil partnerships without looking at our attitude to state marriage. We have accepted that the state can legislate for marriage, even though that marriage is far removed from the concept of Christian marriage that the Church upholds. Civil marriage, which is not permanent and can be dissolved at the whim of one party against the wishes of the other does not undermine our concept of marriage. We have learned to recognise two wholly different institutions and accept that we apply the same name to them. Catholics would be unlikely to demand that all marriages in Britain should conform to the standards to which we aspire even though it was once true <br />that state marriage and religious marriage were both governed by the same rules. In that same way, we cannot demand of the state that it take a religious view of <br />civil partnerships if we do not demand that of the state when it considers <br />heterosexual marriage. <br /><br />We can warn of the dangers, uphold the Christian norm, demand of the faithful that they live according to that norm, and deny the <br />sacraments to those who don't but we cannot reasonably refuse to accept that <br />civil marriage exists and we can even suggest that it is better for people to be <br />married even in this limited way than to live together having taken no serious <br />promises at all.Frederick Oakeleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02830047562237782045noreply@blogger.com